Trending Topics:

Stanford petition misrepresents resolution to divest from occupation

Activism
on 172 Comments

Recently a petition against the divestment resolution presented by Stanford Out of Occupied Palestine has appeared. As a concerned Stanford community member I wish to file this response.

The anti-divestment petition uses many by-now common obfuscations of the issue, including mischaracterization, to make its case. I think it is important to address its main arguments so as to bring the actual motive and nature of the resolution back into focus.

The opposing petition makes these key counter-arguments. I offer my response after each:

“We believe that the resolution of highly complex geopolitical issues, such as the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict, requires the development of thoughtful and constructive approaches that respect the dignity and rights of both peoples. The calls for divestment satisfy none of these criteria. Instead, the calls for divestments ask Stanford to take highly divisive action by condemning Israel, and Israel alone, for the current state of affairs.”

The pro-divestment resolution does not aspire to “resolve” a “complex geopolitical issue.” Its sole aim is to stop Stanford’s financial involvement with companies that aid and abet illegal practices, practices that do great harm and damage to a captive population. Period. The “current state of affairs” is again a diversion from the single target of divestment—divestment aims only at distancing Stanford from a set of practices roundly and multiply condemned by international law, as the many documents from sources such as the United Nations, provided within the resolution, prove.

“Our concerns are heightened because the calls for university divestment are a priority of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The BDS movement does not aim toward a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that recognizes the legitimate national aspirations of both peoples. The majority of the leadership of the BDS Movement does not support Israel’s right to exist, and sees all of Israel as ‘Occupied Palestine.’”

There is absolutely no evidence that those supporting divestment do or would sign onto BDS. Indeed, if they did one would assume they would press for a boycott as well. But that is entirely beside the point. Making the guilt-by-association move allows the anti-divestment side to then say BDS does not “aim toward a peaceful resolution” and tar the pro-divestment side with that brush.

But the anti-divestment side provides no evidence whatsoever for the claim that BDS does not aim toward a peaceful resolution. Indeed, it is exactly the opposite. BDS arose as an entirely legal and non-violent movement in the aftermath of the bloodshed of the Second Intifada. Over 170 civil organizations—teachers unions, health care organizations, workers, intellectuals—decided that another way had to be attempted to bring about justice for Palestinians and others in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. The rhetorical move that ends the paragraph is again an attempt at guilt by association—but the distance between a group of American university students and a reputed (and unnamed) portion of the leadership of an organization in Israel-Palestine is so great as to not have any logical weight.

“Similarly, when groups such as Stanford Out of Occupied Palestine rail against Israel’s recent operations in Gaza against Hamas, they omit the thousands of rockets Hamas fired at Israeli civilians, the Hamas charter that explicitly rejects “peace initiatives” and Hamas’ continued statements that its goal is to destroy Israel. There is also no effort to ask the University to address grotesque human rights violations by other countries. The University should not minimize the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a ‘right’/’wrong’ judgment, nor cherry-pick allegations against one country while ignoring so many other incidents in which human rights violations are indisputable.”

One possible reason for the rejection of “peace initiatives” is that Israel itself has violated the terms of such initiatives repeatedly and with impunity. Most recently it violated the ceasefire, ostensibly in pursuit of the killers of three Israeli settler youths. We now know that Israel knew the youths were already dead when it used the pretext of the search for the youths for its brutal and illegal act of collective punishment, which resulted in these United Nations figures, published by the BBC. These figures provide the most germane empirical data with which to assess the real effect of reputedly “thousands” of rockets fired by Hamas. The United Nations found, between July 8 and August 27, 2014:

2104 Palestinians killed, of whom were 1,462 civilians, including 495 children and 253 women.

72 Israelis killed. Of whom only 6 were civilians.

This vast disproportion bespeaks the ardent and systematic effort on the part of the Israeli government to collectively punish a population, destroy its infrastructure, and terrorize its civilian population. Unlike the Palestinians, Israel has one of the world’s most powerful armed forces, including deadly fighter planes supplied by the United States and paid for with our tax dollars. The Palestinians have none of that. Again, this action was unleashed upon a captive Palestinian people on the pretext that Israel was searching for the missing youths. Contrary to what the anti-divestment side argues, these facts and figures are not “cherry-picked.” They are clear wrongs with which Stanford cannot be associated without casting real doubt as to its commitment to the standard of ethics it professes. Finally, to mention that other countries engage in human rights violations as a pretext for our remaining complicit with Israel’s violations is bizarre.

“The question of how to guarantee the rights of both the Israeli and Palestinian people is a formidable challenge. What is clear, though, is that placing all blame for the conflict on Israel alone is to adopt a highly partisan viewpoint pressed by advocacy groups with a larger objective of delegitimizing Israel.”

Again, a mischaracterization of the effort. Nowhere in the document is there any assertion whatsoever that “all the blame” for the conflict lies with Israel. As noted in the response to the first point, this is a rhetorical misdirection. The divestment resolution aims solely at addressing a set of illegal practices by the state of Israel which Stanford is helping to finance. Period.
But it should be noted that, again in accordance with international human rights conventions, the population of an occupied territory is supposed to be under the protection of its occupier. Perversely, Israel, as the occupying state, routinely siphons desperately-needed water resources away from Palestinian villages to fill the swimming pools of the settlements; purposefully creates power shortages in Palestinian villages; through an extensive system of road blocks and checkpoints and settler-only highways makes daily movement impossible for ordinary Palestinians; has constructed an illegal Wall dividing whole villages; has imposed an illegal embargo of Gaza. Such are the health-care crises that face ordinary Palestinians that the World Health Organization has repeatedly called attention to the desperate lack of medical care in Gaza and urged Israel to make medical supplies available to Palestinians, who suffer grave health and psychological damage due to years and years of Occupation. It is from companies that profit from aiding and abetting the Occupation that we are asking Stanford to divest.

“Furthermore, we strenuously object to the petition’s attempt to falsely link our country’s serious issues of race relations, police violence and incarceration rates with an international conflict over land and national narratives. This is a cynical effort to hijack important civil rights issues to further a narrow political agenda.”

This point is irrelevant to the matter at hand—the legitimacy of divestment.

“It is also critical to recognize the painfully divisive impact any such action would have within the Stanford community. The University’s imperative is to create a welcoming environment that encourages debate of all sorts. We strongly support the free exchange of ideas, including views that are critical of Israel. However, prior divestment campaigns at Stanford have engendered hostility for communities of Stanford students and faculty that have challenged that very environment of civil and open discourse. Further, the BDS movement’s calls for academic and cultural boycotts of Israel are antithetical to Stanford’s cherished academic values of thoughtful discourse and academic freedom, and the deep belief that the best way to effect change is to engage, educate and work creatively toward just solutions.”

The authors again give no evidence whatsoever for their claims. But in terms of divisiveness, I will end by asking a question: why remain unified by accommodating and indeed helping to support actions that have been ruled illegal, immoral, and unjust by international human rights conventions and covenants, the Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations? Why not join civic groups within the United States including mainstream groups such as Presbyterian Church, USA, and individuals such as Bill Gates, and divest from companies that facilitate the Occupation?

David Palumbo-Liu
About David Palumbo-Liu

David Palumbo-Liu is the Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford University.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

172 Responses

  1. JeffB
    JeffB on February 10, 2015, 5:13 pm

    2104 Palestinians killed, of whom were 1,462 civilians, including 495 children and 253 women.

    72 Israelis killed. Of whom only 6 were civilians.

    This vast disproportion bespeaks the ardent and systematic effort on the part of the Israeli government to collectively punish a population… Again, this action was unleashed upon a captive Palestinian people on the pretext that Israel was searching for the missing youths.

    That’s a lie pure and simple. The action in Gaza was never claimed to be a search for missing youths. It was a response to rocket fire and then tunnels in Gaza. The Gazans decided to strike Israel because of activity on the West Bank. That Gaza initiating and it had nothing to do with a search.

    • annie
      annie on February 10, 2015, 10:33 pm

      jeff there was an israeli pogrom against palestinians in the WB that went on for weeks, it is very well documented. the pogrom was under the pretense of searching for the “captive” teens. hamas did not initiate the violence, israel did.

      netanyahu didn’t like the unity agreement. he started a war. a war on palestinians.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 11, 2015, 7:11 am

        @Annie

        Wait a minute. Israel potentially initiated violence against the West Bank (though that’s arguable). The Gazans initiated the Israeli / Gaza war. If the USA was getting into it with Japan and Mexico decided to attack the United States because they didn’t like what we were doing with Japan that would be Mexico initiating the hostilities. The stuff on the West Bank was the Gazans reasons for starting the war, but baving a reason to start a war doesn’t mean you didn’t start it.

      • annie
        annie on February 11, 2015, 10:16 am

        jeff, you’ll have to come up w/a better argument than comparing palestine to mexico and japan. #fail

      • hophmi
        hophmi on February 11, 2015, 12:32 pm

        Great analogy, Jeff. That’s exactly what it is. As usual, when Annie tells you to “come up with a better argument,” it’s code for, “I don’t wanna deal with logic.”

      • eljay
        eljay on February 11, 2015, 12:59 pm

        || hophmeee: Great analogy, Jeff. ||

        Not really. Mexicans aren’t Japanese and Japanese aren’t Mexicans. The people in both Gaza and the West Bank, however, are Palestinians. But I get it: Divide and conquer. Nice.

        (And still not a word about JeffBeee’s anti-Semitic assertion that all Jews are responsible for the crimes of some (Zio-supremacist) Jews. Interesting.)

      • seafoid
        seafoid on February 11, 2015, 1:09 pm

        Hoppy

        Bots are repeaters. You repeat hasbara.
        Logic doesn’t get a look in. You sell a dud Weltanschauung, like team of encyclopedia salespeople or Jehovahs witnesses with a good line in door opening.

      • pjdude
        pjdude on February 11, 2015, 2:00 pm

        @jeffB no its not arguable its a fact. the gazan didn’t initiate the Israeli gazan war Israel once againinitiated a war against the palestinians. your analogy is crap. a accurate analogy would be canda attacking alaska so the Us retaliates from washington state. the only people who view gaza and the west bank as seperate political entities is Israel and those that support its war criminal ways. gaza and the west bank or all palestinian an attack on one is an attack on the other. their 2 parts of the same political entity. and its funny how you blaim Israel’s victims in the 6 day war as starting it but here you label what in your mind is a simliar act as starting here because you don’t like it. your just a hypocrite jeff.

        @ hophmi. no its not a good one. the only reason you feel that way is beecause it fits with your own biases and bigotry. but that doesn’t mean its a good one.

      • Keith
        Keith on February 11, 2015, 7:46 pm

        JEFFB- “The Gazans initiated the Israeli / Gaza war.”

        No they didn’t. As has been the case from the beginning, Israel both ignores its obligations under previous cease fire agreements, then engages in provocations until Hamas finally retaliates. In the most recent case, Israel, using the killed teens as a pretext, engaged in a massive assault on Hamas, including killings. Noam Chomsky describes what happened:

        “One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.” The Israeli police have since been searching for two members of the clan, still claiming, without evidence, that they are “Hamas terrorists.”

        The 18-day rampage however did succeed in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. According to Israeli military sources, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with Hamas, and killed six Palestinians, also searching thousands of locations and confiscating $350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7.

        Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.” (Noam Chomsky)
        http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/outrage/

        I have posted this information before in response to Hophmi’s ongoing propaganda. Of course, you and he will continue to resurrect the big lie whenever you can. The situation in Gaza is clear: Israel is a brutal occupier and you and Hophmi support Israel’s mass murder, which you attempt to justify by lying.

      • talknic
        talknic on February 13, 2015, 8:58 am

        The mind boggles

        @ JeffB

        ” The Gazans initiated the Israeli / Gaza war”

        In effect the Zionist Federation did 1897 when it decided to colonize Palestine

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 13, 2015, 9:23 am

        JeffB doesn’t want to go that far back…he might come face to face with the non-Judaic nature of modern zionism…and how similar it is to the other major ideology developing at the time. Origins are a bitch.

      • MRW
        MRW on February 13, 2015, 2:08 pm

        @JeffB,

        annie is right in February 10, 2015, 10:33 pm. I have Hasbara-Fatigue so I’m not up for copying the string of links I could detailing events from April, 2014. (It would mean going through a bunch of PDFs to get the link at the bottom.) They’re in the archives here, anyway. Israel initiated the war. Period.

        They discovered the tunnels as a result of bombing Gaza.

        You an attempt to rewrite history all you want, but there are many us who preserve this stuff contemporaneously.

    • Kay24
      Kay24 on February 10, 2015, 10:43 pm

      Wow, so how many had those rockets killed at that stage, for Israel to react so savagely.
      From what source do you get your information from?

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer on February 11, 2015, 12:43 am

      The half dozen killed, 500 arrested without charge (when GoI knew who had commited the kidnapping), looting of personal property, destruction of property, in the West Bank doesn’t even appear on jeff’s radar.

      zionist apologists don’t even rate as having a shred of humanity left. Lowlife thugs the lot.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on February 11, 2015, 1:10 pm

        “zionist apologists don’t even rate as having a shred of humanity left. Lowlife thugs the lot”.

        Eternal victimhood and limitless violence

    • Qualtrough
      Qualtrough on February 11, 2015, 12:54 am

      I find it telling that Israel feels that it is in such danger that it is necessary and justified to engage in actions which kill over 1400 civilians in a very short space of time, and yet this same country tells French Jews they need to leave France for the safety of Israel.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 11, 2015, 12:29 pm

        @Qualtrough

        It is pretty simple.

        When Jews in France or Iran are attacked the gentile government has to decide to what extent it will either sanction or collude with the mass violence or rather oppose it. The actual act of opposition to the violence if the state chooses to oppose it falls on a gentile security apparatus they have no control in or say over.

        In Israel there is no choice. The government is instinctually, immediately and unquestionably on their side. Whatever actions it takes are taken by a Jewish army under Jewish command.

        Cows before they are slaughtered for meat or kept for breeding and milk have the kind of security French Jews. The farmer has the kind of security that Israelis have.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on February 11, 2015, 1:12 pm

        Jeff

        you are fucking nuts

        How many French Jews committed suicide last year after engaging in human rights abuses ?
        Cows before slaughter are a different kettle of metaphors.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 5:50 pm

        “When Jews in France or Iran are attacked the gentile government”

        Are you calling the French government a religious one? Madame Guillotine might want to talk to you about that.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr on February 12, 2015, 3:52 pm

        one can legitimately argue the merits of a Zionist state, of a Jewish state and of how Palestinians have been included/excluded from this said state. One can even argue about wether Jews are fundamentally safer living in the US then in Europe and/or Israel. But it can not be argued that the ‘Jews are safer in the US or Europe now’ without taking into account that Israel has existed since the end of ww2. It is a known quantity in this respect and to can not be judged-only guess at-how safe or unsafe world Jewry may have been or felt had there bee no State of israel, or even a de-militarized Israel, or truncated Israel. These things just don;t exist so there is no way to judge how safe or unsafe anybody would have been had they actually existed. SO like it or hate it-Israel cannot be removed from the equation of what has keep Jews from declining further in the world post ww2. One could guess and extrapolate one way or the other but there would be no inherent legitimacy to the exercise.
        So while some here may hate JfBs comment that the welfare and safety of the Jewish people are taken by a Jewish army, intelligence core and leadership that does embrace a % of asst. minorities into their ranks much like the western/euro/asian/afro powers do. But yes-ultimately in Israel power is with a Jewish establishment which is responsible for all its citizens safety that live within its laws.
        Jews may have the greatest access to political power they ever had in the US but it still doesn’t equal the security of living in Israel. Benj. Franklin-(who did NOT say the famous quote about ‘liberty/security’ would most surely agree.)

      • talknic
        talknic on February 13, 2015, 3:06 am

        DaBakr ” one can legitimately argue the merits of a …. Benj. Franklin-(who did NOT say the famous quote about ‘liberty/security’ would most surely agree.)”

        291 words that simply don’t reconcile with the fact that:
        A) the Israeli government actively endangers Israeli Jews by encouraging them to be in breach of GC IV, a convention adopted to protect all civilians including those of the Occupying Power from the almost certain consequences of war and;

        B) by illegally acquiring non-Israeli territory by war over the last 67 years, illegally annexing, illegally settling, illegally selling non-Israeli land in non-Israeli territories to Israeli citizens illegally in non-Israeli territory, successive Israeli governments have guided Israel into the un-enviable illegal ‘facts on the ground’ position of being un-able to afford to adhere to the law and requiring the protection of the US veto vote in the UNSC lest the Jewish state be held accountable in which case it would be a monumental failure

      • eljay
        eljay on February 13, 2015, 9:45 am

        || JeffBeee: When Jews in France or Iran are attacked the gentile government has to decide to what extent it will either sanction or collude with the mass violence or rather oppose it. … In Israel there is no choice. The government is instinctually, immediately and unquestionably on their side. Whatever actions it takes are taken by a Jewish army under Jewish command. ||

        All states should act “instinctually, immediately and unquestionably” on behalf of all of their citizens:
        – France, on behalf of all French citizens;
        – Iran, on behalf of all Iranian citizens; and
        – Israel, on behalf of all Israeli citizens (not just the Jewish ones; and certainly not on behalf of non-Israeli Jews or non-Jews).

        JeffBeee presents another excellent example of why Israel is a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. Keep up the good work.

    • ritzl
      ritzl on February 11, 2015, 1:47 am

      You’re right JeffB. It is a lie. There was NO pretext. Israel just chose to blame, provoke, and then kill them en masse.

      There were no rockets prior to the rampage oldgeezer mentions. There were a few AFTER that rampage went on for a couple weeks.

      The moral to the story, and every single one prior to this, is that Israel could have calm and security if it would STOP killing and mistreating Palestinians for anything other than sport. But it can’t because killing Palestinians in bunches is a political winner in that sick little country.

    • lonely rico
      lonely rico on February 11, 2015, 4:26 am

      >JeffB
      That’s a lie pure and simple. The action in Gaza … was a response to rocket fire

      Yeah, sure.

      How about the headline of June 30, 2014 article in Times of Israel by Avi Issacharoff –

      Hamas fires rockets for first time since 2012, Israeli officials say.

      The article goes on to say – “The security sources … assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.

      It is you who must stop lying JeffB.
      Lying in the defense of sadistic violence is particularly ugly.

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 11, 2015, 10:30 am

        I often wonder if JeffB is just uniformed. FOX, NPR, etc…disciples only “know” what they hear from their one source.

    • amigo
      amigo on February 11, 2015, 5:51 am

      Jeff b northridge,when are you making aliyah to your beloved rogue apartheid pip squeak terrorist zionist entity.dont worry ,penn valley will be fine without you and the food scene will improve.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 5:51 pm

        “and the food scene will improve.”

        Be safer, anyway. The good word is: Don’t eat the eggs.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod on February 11, 2015, 9:55 am

      JeffB,
      When IDF belt tightening is starving you…you build a tunnel. When you are sick…because the IDF bombed your hospitals…you dig tunnels. When you are living under a blue tarp…because the IDF destroyed your home and thousands of others…you dig a tunnel. When the IDF uses jets and tanks and drones and starvation and exposure…you might smuggle in a few things in order to survive. It is interesting that you reject these time honored tools of resistence…tools used throughout history by our people. Yes, we do have documented stories of those who were willing to give up, and accept the domination of the oppressor. Fine company you have choosen to keep and to defend.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 11, 2015, 12:12 pm

        @Cigar

        David Palumbo-Liu’s claim was that a bunch of people died in Gaza because the Israelis were looking was an Israeli attack prompted by the search for missing youths. That’s just not true.

        What I’ve been objecting to is lying about what got the Gazans killed.

        . It is interesting that you reject these time honored tools of resistence…tools used throughout history by our people.

        I don’t know when I’ve rejected or what you are claiming I’ve rejected. I’m the one supposedly doing the rejecting and I can’t make heads of tails of what beliefs you are attributing to me. So I’m not going to bother to respond other than to say you are grossly mischaracterizing the argument and diverting with another completely false attack.

        But as long as we are talking character… you’ve switched sides there is no “our people” for you. If you want to talk about resistance tools used by your former people fine.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 6:03 pm

        “But as long as we are talking character… you’ve switched sides there is no “our people” for you. If you want to talk about resistance tools used by your former people fine.”

        “JeffyB!” “JeffyB!” This is disgraceful! What a spectacle!
        Here we are, all of us Jews, staking our very existence on tribal unity, and you start showing the Gentiles division and strife among us, co-religionists shunning each other! He didn’t mean it, folks!! He didn’t mean it!
        Is this the square thing, the straight bat, the memories of the old quad and regimental ties that bind us? Now I ask you, JeffyB, is that the way Judas and the Maccabees would handle this? No, they would laugh lightly, clap their fellow Jew on the back and say “well, we can agree to disagree! Let’s go have a drink of wine, brother” if even one Roman or Greek was looking. And he would answer, “Have a cigar, a ten-dollar cigar!” And they would go into the Temple arm-in-arm, laughing lightly, talking of this and that, and no Gentiles seeing our dirty laundry.
        Strive for that ideal, “JeffyB” the tribal unity that wins through!

        Of course, I’m assuming that you don’t think there are simply too many Jews, and the ranks need to be purged of the non-observant, malingerers, neer-do-wells, hooligans, insufficiently Zionist, wreckers, disseminaters of anti-Jewish proaganda, and those who, in shaking hands with you, shake hands with you like this.
        If you think are numbers should be cut to make us a meaner, leaner fighting machine, the few, the proud, the strong, the Jewish, say so. You’re not the only one who feels that way. That sorta what you got in mind?

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 9:40 pm

        Hey, “JeffyB”, isn’t your daughter headed off to college? That ought to put a stop to all the anti-Israel activity.
        Maybe you could volunteer to give a seminar on Palestine and Zionism, and straighten everything out for everybody. A series of lectures, and a bound copy of your Mondo comment archive completes the syllabus! No one will say “it’s complicated” after you get done explaining it, “JeffyB”.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr on February 12, 2015, 2:24 pm

        @moos

        i still can’t figure out what the f your trying to say or complain about. You jumped right on the above comment so I thought it might be clear, but it is not. If it is in some special anti-Zionist ‘code’ as I suggested before-its beyond my scope. Because to me your rants sound like the chatterings of a hebephrenic bedlamite

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 11:05 am

        “hebephrenic bedlamite”

        No, “Dabkr” that is exactly what I would be if I ever took a single one of you seriously.

        “If it is in some special anti-Zionist ‘code’ as I suggested before-its beyond my scope.”

        Well, yes, “Dabakr” it’s mostly, you know, ‘Jewish talk’, I wouldn’t expect you to understand it. Besides, you are, well, pretty dumb.

        Say, here’s an idea! Why don’t you, “Yonah”, “Jon s”, “JeffyB”, “Hophmi” and “Mayhem” team up, and coordinate your dialectic? That team would be unstoppable!

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on February 13, 2015, 11:52 am

        Mooser,

        “Say, here’s an idea! Why don’t you, “Yonah”, “Jon s”, “JeffyB”, “Hophmi” and “Mayhem” team up, and coordinate your dialectic? That team would be unstoppable!”

        Pro-Israel, pro-Zionist commenters on Mondoweiss:

        1. DaBakr
        2. hophmi
        3. JeffB
        4. jon s
        5. Mayhem
        6. miriam6
        7. yonah fredman

        Any others?

      • eljay
        eljay on February 13, 2015, 12:23 pm

        || seanmcbride: Any others? ||

        Mikhael.

        (I wonder where the potato-man is these days… )

      • annie
        annie on February 13, 2015, 3:08 pm

        i think we bounced him. don’t quote me on that but it’s my vague recollection.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 1:48 pm

        “any others”

        Oh, they come and go. I don’t even pretend to keep track of them.
        They’re Like the poor rabbit who was turned into a thug: Hare today, goon tomorrow.l

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 6:16 pm

        “as I suggested before-its beyond my scope. “

        Good. I’d be very alarmed if you understood anything I said.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on February 13, 2015, 7:51 pm

        eljay,

        Are you referring to this Mikhael?

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/mikhael

      • talknic
        talknic on February 13, 2015, 9:05 pm

        @ eljay
        “(I wonder where the potato-man is these days… )”

        or … who the potato-man is these days

      • eljay
        eljay on February 13, 2015, 9:17 pm

        || talknic: or … who the potato-man is these days ||

        Good point. :-)

      • eljay
        eljay on February 13, 2015, 10:10 pm

        || seanmcbride: eljay,

        Are you referring to this Mikhael?

        link to mondoweiss.net ||

        Yup. He reads from the same Zio-supremacist playbook as the other guys.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride on February 14, 2015, 3:15 pm

        eljay,

        “Yup. He [Mikhael] reads from the same Zio-supremacist playbook as the other guys.”

        An important point to keep in mind: while it is easy for Mondoweiss commenters to pile on hophmi, JeffB, jon s and other pro-Israel activists from the safety of Mondoweiss, out in the real world the Israel lobby continues to enjoy dominating and overwhelming power over American politics — especially in the US Congress.

        The self-confidence and swagger of the pro-Israel activists in the Mondoweiss comments section is not entirely misplaced — they can afford to take a verbal beating from MW regulars with equanimity.

        Also: when progressive anti-Zionists fall into a pattern of repetitive verbal abuse of pro-Israel activists — George Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate — it undermines their cause. They become tiresome.

        How this conflict will play out is still unclear to me. Perhaps progressive anti-Zionists will flip American public opinion in their favor (and American Mideast policy with it) — or perhaps the Israel lobby will succeed in demonizing progressive anti-Zionists as dangerous allies and supporters of anti-Western terrorism. Stay tuned for further developments. The battle is fully engaged.

        A major factor in play: Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu have a genius for making unforced errors that leave openings for the opposition to exploit. They keep overplaying their hand and undermining their position.

        Bottom line: American foreign policy is largely created by Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. If they want it to happen, it will happen — if they don’t want it to happen, it won’t. Not always, but usually. No amount of impassioned rants on the Internet will change that reality.

        The establishment has already learned how to bottle up and marginalize sectors of the Internet that they find to be annoying. Look at the great debates about 9/11, for instance — all kept carefully out of sight and out of mind for most of the American public.

      • eljay
        eljay on February 14, 2015, 10:48 am

        || seanmcbride: Any others? ||

        There’s also Palikari. I’d forgotten about him until he chimed in on a thread just now with the usual Zio-supremacist bit about “only democracy in the Middle East”.

        As though the fact that the rapist is the only volunteer hockey coach in the neighbourhood absolves him of his past and on-going crimes.

    • eljay
      eljay on February 11, 2015, 10:26 am

      || JeffBeee: The Gazans decided to strike Israel because of activity on the West Bank. ||

      Funny, isn’t it? Palestinians commit terrorism (or terrrrr), but an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – a state that for over 60 years and with impunity has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians – commits “activity”.

      Ah, the poor rapist – constantly terrorized by his victim, when all he wants to do is enjoy some “activity”. :-(

      || oldgeezer: zionist apologists don’t even rate as having a shred of humanity left. … ||

      They are fully committed to being hateful and immoral supremacists.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer on February 11, 2015, 10:36 am

      @JeffB
      “Wait a minute. Israel potentially initiated violence against the West Bank (though that’s arguable). The Gazans initiated the Israeli / Gaza war. ”

      No, you’re still wrong.

      Israel began it’s usual assassinations to trigger the gaza war.

      http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fired-rockets-for-first-time-since-2012-israeli-officials-say/

      Not only did Israel trigger the massacre it wanted to trigger the massacre. Referring to the bombing and stand off artillery bombardment of a civilian population as war is risible. It was an intentional criminal slaughter.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 11, 2015, 12:20 pm

        @oldGeezer

        Your timeline is still off.
        Between May 1 – June11 you have 6 rockets fired from Gaza.
        They continue at a faster pace after this.
        June 29th is the 1st Israeli airstrike on Gaza.

        So you still have the problem your dates are reversed but at least your geography is consistent and this is all Gaza.

        Referring to the bombing and stand off artillery bombardment of a civilian population as war is risible

        The elected government of the Gazans is Hamas. Hamas has a military wing. That military wing claimed it was in a war. I also think the Hamas military is pathetic. The Gazans don’t believe that it is pathetic and as a sovereign people of Gaza they are entitled to a government that represents their views on whether they are or are not in a state of war. If you want to disagree with them that’s fine , but that’s not on Israel that’s on the Gazans.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer on February 12, 2015, 1:02 am

        @JeffB

        No my timeline isn’t off at all. I’ll take the statement by the security officials over yours. The ultimate fact is the Nakba, occupation, land theft, seige and blockade predates any rockets from Gaza. Shifting the goal posts is merely an attempt to weasel out of standing behind your claims.

        The war was intentionally started by Israel to mow the grass and the conduct of the war ensured a high level of civilian casualties and maximum fear.

        It was a war crime and murderous act perpetrated by the rogue state of Israel.

    • amalla
      amalla on February 11, 2015, 1:10 pm

      @jeffb

      “Wait a minute. Israel potentially initiated violence against the West Bank (though that’s arguable). The Gazans initiated the Israeli / Gaza war. If the USA was getting into it with Japan and Mexico decided to attack the United States because they didn’t like what we were doing with Japan that would be Mexico initiating the hostilities.” Jeffb

      Wtf?? The West Bank and Gaza belong to the same country!

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 11, 2015, 2:04 pm

        @amalla

        Wtf?? The West Bank and Gaza belong to the same country!

        Do they?
        Their populations have different national characteristics (ex far less Syrian culture and far more Egyptian culture in Gaza).
        They have different governments which have fought a civil war against each other less than a decade ago.
        Those governments have different policies.
        They have different religious preferences.
        They aren’t physically connected.
        One is independent from Israel the other being partially annexed

        etc…

        Other than the UN says so what evidence is there that they are the same country?

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 9:42 pm

        “Other than the UN says so what evidence is there that they are the same country?”

        “Other than the UN says so…” Really “JeffyB”? “Other than the UN says so”, what makes Israel even one country?

      • amigo
        amigo on February 12, 2015, 2:54 pm

        “Other than the UN says so…” Really “JeffyB”? “Other than the UN says so”, what makes Israel even one country?” mooser

        Israel sans frontier.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:15 pm

        “Israel sans frontier.”

        Why stop there? Israel uber alles!

      • talknic
        talknic on February 12, 2015, 9:51 pm

        @ JeffB //The West Bank and Gaza belong to the same country! //

        “Do they?”

        They’re both part of what remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” What remained of Palestine has never been legally split from Palestine ( corpus separatum was never instituted . Palestine still includes Jerusalem – read UNSC res 476 )

        Can you point to any official document whereby they became legally separated? Careful now, wouldn’t want you to slip in more ziopoop

        “Their populations have different national characteristics”

        Irrelevant. Unless of course you’d like to apply the same criteria to Israel, the USA, Australia, the UK

        “They have different governments which have fought a civil war against each other less than a decade ago.”

        They have different administrations. When was the last Palestinian election to elect a different Palestinian Government

        “They have different religious preferences”

        How many religious preferences in Israel, the USA , Australia, the UK?

        .“They aren’t physically connected”

        Neither is Israel by its official and only legal borders, the ” frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″. Nor are Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, California. Xmas Island and the Australian mainland. The UK and the Falklands.

        “One is independent from Israel the other being partially annexed”

        Both are occupied. Israel has never legally annexed or legally acquired any territory. It’s borders are the same as the day they were proclaimed in order for Israel to be recognized.

        “Other than the UN says so what evidence is there that they are the same country?”

        The UN is the majority. You’re spouting a minority opinion that has it’s basis in complete bullsh*t .

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 11:14 am

        “Both are occupied. Israel has never legally annexed or legally acquired any territory. It’s borders are the same as the day they were proclaimed in order for Israel to be recognized.

        But, but, but, doesn’t that put the Jews operating in those un-annexed and illegally acquired areas in a very invidious, not to mention dangerous, position. And if they have paid for land? Where does that leave them?
        Naturally, they are relying on that good old tribal unity to get them out of the jam. It’s never failed us yet!

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 13, 2015, 11:28 am

        Methods of “payment” from history:

        1. Make him an offer he can’t refuse.
        2. How am i supposed to know that pile of ruble is yours…right, cousin…i mean judge?
        3. You took the shiny beads, dude.
        4. So and so says God said so right here in this book. I guess your people couldnt write.
        5. See that tank? Thats my deed.
        6. The deals done…you ate my bowl of pottage.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 7:52 pm

        “Methods of “payment” from history:”

        To put it bluntly, the way I understand it (“talknic” would know more, I think) the Zionists, Israel steals it from the Palestinians, and then they sell it to other, uh,um, Zionists.
        So if things go sideways, where does it leave the people who “bought’ the land they probably don’t really have a right to take, or even buy, and resell ?

        Apart from the original sin, of course, of the occupation, and colonizing Palestinian land. Perhaps I am wrong about this, and it’s not what ReMax is doing.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod on February 11, 2015, 6:24 pm

      Maybe you just need a kiss and a cigar.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 9:44 pm

        “Maybe you just need a kiss and a cigar.”

        “CigarGod” did you notice that “JeffyB” excommunicated you, up-thread and put you among the enemies of the Jews? I’m not sure their is any appeal to his judgements possible. Sorry you turned out a moser (One “o”)

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 11, 2015, 9:56 pm

        I did notice that, mooser.
        But, I did try to make up by offering a Vintage Monica and a wet one.
        Oh well, since I’m no longer one of the bretheren, I guess I get to wrap all my comments in bacon from now on.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 11:33 pm

        “But, I did try to make up by offering a Vintage Monica and a wet one.”

        Amazing the way they do that “You are no longer a Jew! You are an enemy now!” I ask you in all seriousness, could anybody make themselves a bigger asshole than that? And they always seem so satisfied, like their excommunication is going to stick!

        You know what I suspect? I suspect them of thinking there are too many Jews, and they want to see the number decrease.

        You know, I can’t think of a single one, from Richard Witty all the way up to today’s crop, who didn’t excommunicate people at Mondo. Phil, Adam, Me, Annie, all kinds of commentors, those Zio-Lords of the Prance have kicked us all out.
        One, (was it “Mayhem”?) even swore they would sue Mondo in Israeli court for “ideological crimes”!

        Wait! It just hit me. Bacon-wrapped comments! Mmmmmm…..

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 2:57 am

        You’d be surprised at how common that response is. I’ve been told several times that I’m not a real Jew because I am non-observant and didn’t go to Hebrew school. Two 19 year old kids dressed in black and white came to my door years ago and told me the goods news that I could be the God of my own planet. That seemed fun to me…so why wait? I created a little ritual of wine and a cigar and said some magic words…and abracadabra…I was instantly a God…sort of jow Elizabeth became a queen, but without all the jewelry. I suspect what really irks the majority of the 400 Jews in my state, is that I’m a non-zionist who is openly critical of bad behavior/policy of Jews. Okay, I admit it…I make fun of silly religious/cultural stuff, too…but I do the same for all humans. JeffB knows I consider him primitive. I know it’s not right to expect him to be a better human…but he insists he is better…so I think he’s fair game.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:23 pm

        “You’d be surprised at how common that response is.”

        See, I’ve got this ridiculous idea that for a long time, saying “I am a Jew” could cost you anything from economic stability to civil rights to your life. So if a guy is willing to say “I am a Jew” he damn well is, as far as I’m concerned.

        But of course, that idea probably comes from an earlier age, before Zionism and Israel. These days, of course, Zionists feel we should be more selective. That knish is only so big! Gotta deserve it!

      • talknic
        talknic on February 12, 2015, 9:51 pm

        JeffB deserves a Bondi cigar..

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 10:00 pm

        Talknic,
        Good on ya, mate!
        A freshly rolled one, too.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 11:17 am

        I should have your problems! Jews tell me “You’re not Jewish”, okay, you’ve got to expect some of that, we are a contentious lot. But then Gentiles turn around and call me “a typical Jew” (heard it all my life.) It’s like, it’s like, well, it’s like trying to perform on a delicate stringed instrument, while standing on top of a house, you know?

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer on February 13, 2015, 11:23 am

        @Mooser

        Nothing typical about you. *

        You sure it was Gentiles saying that and not a group of Genitals talking outta their ass?

        * you do pick good tunes to refer to but that also is not typical

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 13, 2015, 11:34 am

        I agree with old geezer, mooser. You ain’t typical…you’re exceptional…and that ain’t wrapped in bacon, brother.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 1:57 pm

        “You ain’t typical”

        Well, don’t think this will discourage me, guys! I will just have to try harder!

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 6:19 pm

        “You ain’t typical”

        Wow, you guys are a tough crowd! For goodness sake, I just compared being Jewish to being “a fiddler, on a roof”. What more do you want out of me?

    • talknic
      talknic on February 12, 2015, 7:07 am

      @ JeffB
      “The Gazans decided to strike Israel because of activity on the West Bank. That Gaza initiating and it had nothing to do with a search.”

      Strange Israel occupied Gaza 1967 … also the West Bank. Both are captive to Israel. The occupied have a right at ANY time to armed resistance

      • Kay24
        Kay24 on February 12, 2015, 10:06 pm

        Good point Talknic. The occupied does have a right to armed resistance. If the roles were reversed one can only imagine how deadly the armed resistance would have been by the zionists. Isn’t it ridiculous how these occupiers blockade, steal, use violence, and massacre, and expect their victims to stand still and sing kumbaya?

    • amalla
      amalla on February 12, 2015, 2:09 pm

      @JeffB

      “Other than the UN says so what evidence is there that they are the same country?”

      I believe Mooser answered you perfectly already. Besides Israel is the one that doesn’t even have defined borders while Palestinians are asking for only 22% of what is left of their land.

      I’m still kind of surprised someone would say Gaza and the West Bank are not part of the same country.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 13, 2015, 8:44 am

        @amalla

        Besides Israel is the one that doesn’t even have defined borders

        Israel’s borders are clarifying like many young countries. They don’t control territory outside mandate Palestine except the sliver of Golan they annexed. Inside mandate Palestine they took the 1967 armistice lines and it appears Area C. They seem to be willing to yield most of Area A and B to a self governing Palestinian homeland and are willing to have Gaza be independent though they have shown a strong preference for it to be a colony of Egypt.

        1949-67 one was Egyptian the other Jordanian. Before that they were part of the British and then before that Ottoman Empire and not really a country at all. Israel applied different administrative regimes to them after the 1st intifada and the difference has only grown since. They had a decade or two where there was fairly free travel between them that’s about it. I can easily get to Quebec from New York that doesn’t make them the same country.

        while Palestinians are asking for only 22% of what is left of their land.

        We know that’s not true from Camp David. If that’s all they wanted they would have had the deal. The problem is not only do they want 22% they also want a right of return. Where they get an exclusively Palestinian state in the West Bank, and exclusively Palestinian state in Gaza and then still get to migrate into the Jewish state. Heck I suspect that “take 22% and get the heck out of the rest” Netanyahu would sign pretty easily even today.

        The problem is they want 100%. They can’t get it so as a PR strategy they are willing to say 22%. But the moment you ask for a permanent relinquishment on all claim on the remaining 78% the mask falls off.

      • talknic
        talknic on February 14, 2015, 12:17 pm

        @ JeffB “Israel’s borders are clarifying like many young countries”

        Example and documentation … thx

        They don’t control territory outside mandate Palestine”

        A) The Golan was outside the Mandate the moment Syria achieved independence

        B) Under the mandate there were never any borders between the territories that became Israel and those that remained of Palestine 1948.

        “except the sliver of Golan they annexed”

        The Knesset record shows Israel did not actually annex the Golan.

        “Inside mandate Palestine they took the 1967 armistice lines and it appears Area C”

        It is “inadmissible to acquire territory by war” and illegal to annex without an agreement per the US annexation of Texas, Hawaii, even Alaska. The US adopted the legal custom of a legal agreement to annex. The US was instrumental in the right to self determination and the legal custom of acquiring territory by agreement eventually passing into Customary International Law

        “They seem to be willing to yield most of Area A and B to a self governing Palestinian homeland”

        It isn’t Israel’s to yield.

        ” and are willing to have Gaza be independent though they have shown a strong preference for it to be a colony of Egypt”

        Independence is not Israel’s to give. Independence is unilateral by nature, your sentence makes no sense

        “1949-67 one was Egyptian”

        It was occupied per Chapt UN Charter, never claimed by Egypt. Egypt did notdid not illegally annex, did not sell or otherwise entitle or entice any Egyptian to illegally settle. Egypt did not claim one inch of the territories it held under occupation

        ” the other Jordanian”

        Indeed. The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians (self determination). Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).. The West Bank by 1967 belonged to a high contracting power, a UN Member state, therefore the GC’s do apply.

        “Before that they were part of the British..”

        The British were only granted a mandate to administrate. It was never British or claimed by the British or part of the British Empire/Commonwealth. Your point BTW is irrelevant to the legal borders of Israel and Israel’s illegal facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Govt claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        “.. before that Ottoman Empire and not really a country at all”

        A) Under the LoN Mandate (1st line) and the LoN Covenant (Article 22) a state was given provisional recognition. It must have existed to be afforded provisional recognition.

        B) Your pathetic point is irrelevant to the legal borders of Israel and Israel’s illegal facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Govt claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        “Israel applied different administrative regimes to them..”

        Irrelevant to your point and irrelevant to the legal borders of Israel and Israel’s illegal facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Govt claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        ” I can easily get to Quebec from New York that doesn’t make them the same country”

        Uh huh. Genius stuff….

        // while Palestinians are asking for only 22% of what is left of their land//

        “We know that’s not true from Camp David. “

        The statements were made at the UN long after Camp David.

        “If that’s all they wanted they would have had the deal. The problem is not only do they want 22% they also want a right of return.”

        A) They have a legal right to 100% of Palestine as it stood after Israel’s borders became effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

        B) They argue for the Right of Return under UNGA res 194 (1948) for non-Jewish Israeli citizens to Israel.

        C)They do not have any need to ask for or demand RoR for Non-Israelis to Palestine.

        “Where they get an exclusively Palestinian state in the West Bank, and exclusively Palestinian state in Gaza and then still get to migrate into the Jewish state”

        RoR via UNGA res 194 for non-Jewish Israelis is not immigration.

        “Heck I suspect that “take 22% and get the heck out of the rest” Netanyahu would sign pretty easily even today”

        He didn’t. Israel’s answer was to build more illegal facts on the ground.

        “The problem is they want 100%.

        Sez you and other idiots for Israel without any evidence what so ever.

        “But the moment you ask for a permanent relinquishment on all claim on the remaining 78% the mask falls off”

        Start quoting buster , ’cause thus far you have NOTHING but unsupported accusations

        Recognition of statehood is irrevocable. So having declared their independence on 22% and if recognized by the majority of the comity of Nations (as they already have) , they’d be legally bound, as is Israel and all other states, to their declared and recognized boundaries.

        So how exactly does this mask allegedly fall off?

    • on February 15, 2015, 5:46 pm

      The Gazans decided to strike Israel because of activity on the West Bank.

      The “activity” on the West Bank. Does it tell you anything JeffB, that you use such an innocuous and misleading word to describe the rampage Israel went on in the West Bank? Somehow I suspect not.

      So in response to “rockets” being fired from Gaza and hitting nothing, Israel just has to kill more than 2,000 Gazans?

      And, if Gaza did indeed fire rockets into Israel due to “activity on the West Bank”, isn’t Gaza retaliating rather than initiating? Do you not see your Orwellian use of language?

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 15, 2015, 6:07 pm

        His “language” consists of putting his autonomic responses into words.

  2. just
    just on February 10, 2015, 5:18 pm

    Powerful dissection of their pitiful petition, David!

    Who wrote that petition anyway? Frank Luntz? (did I miss something?)

    It’s filled with Zionist talking points, hasbara, lies, faux concern, and whataboutery.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 10, 2015, 7:55 pm

      “It’s filled with Zionist talking points, hasbara, lies, faux concern, and whataboutery.”

      Fpr god’s sake “just”, don’t encourage them! I’m sure they will all learn it by memory without being prompted, and we will be subjected to endless regurgitations of it.

      • just
        just on February 10, 2015, 7:59 pm

        “I’m sure they will all learn it by memory without being prompted, and we will be subjected to endless regurgitations of it.”

        Mooser~ too late. done and done. long ago, with no help from me.

    • Krauss
      Krauss on February 11, 2015, 2:26 am

      Who wrote that petition anyway? Frank Luntz?

      Anyone engaged in this field to know that all the arguments follow a similar chain of argument:

      1. Concern-troll by pretending you care about Palestinian human life(so as to get “buy-in” for your arguments.

      2. Claim that the divestment seeks to “resolve” the conflict while it is simply about saying no to companies engaged in Apartheid and oppression.

      3. Smear the people as out to “destroy” Israel. Which is a funny charge, because does an Apartheid state deserve to live?

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 11, 2015, 12:32 pm

        @Krauss

        Smear the people as out to “destroy” Israel. Which is a funny charge, because does an Apartheid state deserve to live?

        Yes! I can disagree with a state’s policies without wanting to destroy the nation. I might back regime change in Iran and I don’t back ending Persia as a concept. Iran discriminates that doesn’t mean it deserves to die.

        And if you do advocate the destruction of Israel claiming you advocate that isn’t a smear.

      • talknic
        talknic on February 12, 2015, 7:13 am

        @ JeffB
        ” I can disagree with a state’s policies without wanting to destroy the nation. “

        Uh huh. Other folk can do likewise of Israel., especially as Israel is in breach of laws and conventions adopted in large part because pf the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis.

        ” I might back regime change in Iran and I don’t back ending Persia as a concept. Iran discriminates that doesn’t mean it deserves to die.”

        The Iranians and the UNSC seem to share the same idea re Israel http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 11:23 am

        “the treatment of our Jewish fellows”

        “Talknic”, my much admired correspondent, let me give you some friendly advice: Go easy on the “our” until “JeffyB”, or one of the others weighs in on your bona vitae.
        You may find your membership cancelled, and you will not receive $200 or get out of jail free.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 1:59 pm

        Sorry, I meant your curriculum Vita. You should be herring from him soon.

  3. JWalters
    JWalters on February 10, 2015, 7:34 pm

    There is considerable evidence that Israel actually deserves to be condemned for the current state of affairs. Much of the situation’s apparent “complexity” dissolves when this evidence is no longer omitted from the discussion. The facts for people in denial may be tough love, but the truth is ultimately the healthiest way to go.

  4. Pixel
    Pixel on February 10, 2015, 9:08 pm

    Go, DAVID!

    Say, MW isn’t the only place this is going to be published/read, is it?

  5. Kay24
    Kay24 on February 10, 2015, 10:47 pm

    Israel deservedly has more coming down the pipeline:

    “Report: EU planning to step up sanctions on Israeli settlements after election
    The assumption in Europe is that Israel will elect a rightist government, which will ease the advancement of sanctions, officials tell Walla! News.

    The European Union is preparing new sanctions against Israeli settlements which are to be enacted following the national election, the Walla! News site reported Tuesday.

    The report came a day after it emerged that Israel is planning major expansion of several West Bank settlements.

    Walla! cited unnamed Israeli officials as saying that the EU is seeking to deepen the distinction between the territories within the Green Line, and those beyond it. The measures reportedly do not differentiate between West Bank settlement blocs, isolated outposts and Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

    “They’re talking about sanctions against companies that do business across the border; about legal measures taken by the Palestinians with regard to the settlements; and about the renewed proposal to establish a Palestinian state through the Security Council,” one official was quoted as saying. “The assumption in Europe is that after the election Israel will have a rightist government, in which case it would be easier for them to advance these measures.”
    Haaretz article

    Time to tighten that noose, world. The consistent thumbing of their noses at the world, while breaking international laws, and stealing lands from those they wield power over, deserves to be met with some actions. The Palestinians, fed up already, have said enough of the condemning, and that it is time something MUST be done about these criminals.

  6. hophmi
    hophmi on February 11, 2015, 10:41 am

    What a morass of tendentious dissembling by BDS activist Professor Palumbo-Liu.

    “The pro-divestment resolution does not aspire to “resolve” a “complex geopolitical issue.” Its sole aim is to stop Stanford’s financial involvement with companies that aid and abet illegal practices, practices that do great harm and damage to a captive population. Period. ”

    C’mon, Professor. Surely, you can admit that these resolutions are tactics in pursuit of a greater goal of resolving the conflict in the Palestinians’ favor. If you can’t even admit that, then you’re either purposely obfuscating your aim, or you’re being extremely naive.

    “The “current state of affairs” is again a diversion from the single target of divestment—divestment aims only at distancing Stanford from a set of practices roundly and multiply condemned by international law, as the many documents from sources such as the United Nations, provided within the resolution, prove.”

    But, again, you seem interest in only address international law as it pertains to Israel, and there is no record of the activists behind the resolution launching similar campaigns to deal with any other human rights situation in the world, including those of Israel’s neighbors, and those of Israel’s adversaries, like Hamas, so, surely, you can acknowledge that many people read resolutions like this as attempts simply to support one side to a two-party conflict, and not as a statement in favor of international law enforcement.

    “There is absolutely no evidence that those supporting divestment do or would sign onto BDS.”

    So this resolution is not supported by the BDS movement? What does the D stand for again?

    “Indeed, if they did one would assume they would press for a boycott as well.”

    So, the group pushing for divestment does not support a boycott? You certainly do.

    “But the anti-divestment side provides no evidence whatsoever for the claim that BDS does not aim toward a peaceful resolution.”

    Simply point me to the sources where the BDS has condemned Palestinian suicide bombings and advocated peaceful negotiations between the two protagonists. Heck, point me to a place where the BDS movement has specifically defined the right to resist, read by everyone in the region as a right to kill Israeli civilians, as only encompassing non-violent tactics.

    Alas, your argument contradicts itself. First you say that divestment isn’t about a solution. Then you say that divestment isn’t BDS. Then you say that BDS is about a peaceful resolution. Which is it? It’s whatever is most politically expedient for your argument, professor, right?

    “The rhetorical move that ends the paragraph is again an attempt at guilt by association—but the distance between a group of American university students and a reputed (and unnamed) portion of the leadership of an organization in Israel-Palestine is so great as to not have any logical weight.”

    Are you serious, professor? Are you now asserting that the entirety of the leadership of the BDS movement is based in Israel-Palestine? Can you support that assertion with facts? Does most of the money to organize the BDS movement in the United States come, in fact, from the Middle East? I’d love to learn.

    Are you also arguing now that BDS supporters like those at Mondoweiss are wrong to associate a student divestment petition with the BDS movement? If it’s wrong for anti-divestment advocates to associate a student divestment petition with the BDS movement, logic dictates that it’s wrong for BDS activists to do so as well.

    “One possible reason for the rejection of “peace initiatives” is that Israel itself has violated the terms of such initiatives repeatedly and with impunity.”

    So, your argument now appears to be that because Israel “violated a ceasefire” because of the murder of three settler youths by Hamas activists, Hamas retroactively reputed all peace initiatives in its founding Charter.

    “72 Israelis killed. Of whom only 6 were civilians…This vast disproportion bespeaks the ardent and systematic effort on the part of the Israeli government to collectively punish a population, destroy its infrastructure, and terrorize its civilian population. ”

    Did only 6 civilians die because Hamas didn’t target civilians, or did only 6 civilians die because Israel actually builds bomb shelters rather than weapon smuggling tunnels? Is the targeting of civilians not a crime unless civilians actually die? I’d say that the disproportion bespeaks the efforts Israel makes to protect its civilians, and the stupidity of Hamas attacking the civilians of a country with a real army.

    “Finally, to mention that other countries engage in human rights violations as a pretext for our remaining complicit with Israel’s violations is bizarre.”

    It is? I think it’s called consistency, Professor. If you want to avoid being a hypocrite who obsessively criticizes one small country but remains relatively silent on much worse human rights problems around the world, open your mouth and address those examples with the fervency and vitriol that you direct at Israel. It’s just logical, Professor, if indeed you do care about human right in the way that you say that you do.

    “Nowhere in the document is there any assertion whatsoever that “all the blame” for the conflict lies with Israel. ”

    No? Then please point me to the section of the resolution that recounts Palestinian violations of international law, and to those BDS movement leaders, or divestment petition leaders who will say publicly that blame lies on both sides.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 11, 2015, 6:29 pm

      A full-length, full-on mutter. Hoo-boy!

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 11, 2015, 11:41 pm

      “What a morass of tendentious dissembling by BDS activist Professor Palumbo-Liu.”

      And your credentials, Hophmi? Screw your credentials, how about your fucking name? You won’t even give your name, or the name of the two “Muslim-outreach organizations” you are (or so you say) “on the board of Directors of”

      Why don’t we start there, before we decide who is “tendentious”? mmm’okay?

    • talknic
      talknic on February 12, 2015, 7:35 am

      @ hophmi
      “C’mon, Professor. Surely, you can admit that these resolutions are tactics in pursuit of a greater goal of resolving the conflict in the Palestinians’ favor.”

      Sez you, an apologist for Israel, without giving any evidence

      “If you can’t even admit that, then you’re either purposely obfuscating your aim, or you’re being extremely naive”

      Evidence …. nil.

      “But, again, you seem interest in only address international law as it pertains to Israel, and there is no record of the activists behind the resolution launching similar campaigns to deal with any other human rights situation in the world,”

      What other human rights situation in the world are being committed by a state in territories outside the sovereignty of the state committing those atrocities?

      “Simply point me to the sources where the BDS has condemned Palestinian suicide bombings “

      Zioidiocy at its best I guess. A) Those who commit them are dead. Boycotting dead people is a quaint idea … B) how does one boycott or divest from persons if those persons are unknown?

      ” advocated peaceful negotiations between the two protagonists”

      No need for negotiations at all were Israel to have adhered to the law from the outset. It didn’t, still hasn’t. Adhere to the law and withdraw from all non-Israeli territories for once, never been tried.

      ” If you want to avoid being a hypocrite who obsessively criticizes one small country but remains relatively silent on much worse human rights problems around the world”

      You have evidence for ANYTHING you say?

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:33 pm

        “You have evidence for ANYTHING you say?”

        Evidence? “Talknic”, what about his tone? Can’t you feel the sincerity, the cry of a well-informed-albeit- disinterested-yet-passionate-in-pursuit-of-justice kind of guy?

        And what about all the intimations and insinuations Hophmi trades in? What if they are entirely the vicious phantasms of his obfuscatory paranoia? It just shows how strongly he feels about it.

    • Kris
      Kris on February 12, 2015, 5:56 pm

      @hopmi, anyone who would say publicy OR privately “that blame lies on both sides” would be lying.

  7. pabelmont
    pabelmont on February 11, 2015, 11:14 am

    These pro-BDS and anti-BDS statements are apparently repetitive of other pro-BDS and normal (Israeli-hasbara-tainted) anti-BDS talking points. That means that a lot of pro-BDS labor could be saved by taking both the initial pro-BDS petitions and the replies to the anti-BDS statements “out of a can” of previously prepared argumentation. There should be a BDS-central-arguments-repository both for the arguments in favor of BDS petitions and also for the put-downs to the anti-BDS statements.

    Of course, in some cases the pro-BDS material must be suited to the institution, the occasion, the facts-of-actual-investments, etc.

  8. FrankinHonduras
    FrankinHonduras on February 11, 2015, 11:49 am

    If the US is a nation of peace, why aren’t we using the Dome protection for both sides?

    • JeffB
      JeffB on February 11, 2015, 1:51 pm

      @FrankinHonduras

      1) We (the USA) aren’t a nation of peace. We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. We will over the next 10 years spend on upgrading our nuclear forces what Israel spends on the entire IDF.

      2) We like one side way more than the other.

      3) Iron dome has some pretty sophisticated stuff. We trust one side not to sell the technology to Iran we don’t trust the other not to do that. Moreover, one side helps us develop weapons and is a key player in arms export and technology the other is not.

      4) The Israelis did the bulk of their damage using artillery and the Iron Dome doesn’t work against artillery. The Israelis used either none or very few rockets during the conflict.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on February 11, 2015, 6:24 pm

        “We trust one side not to sell the technology to Iran ”

        Selling US technology to China, on the other hand … meh, gotta make a living somehow.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 6:37 pm

        “4) The Israelis did the bulk of their damage using artillery and the Iron Dome doesn’t work against artillery.”

        The Israelis attacked a civilian population, a densely packed one, with artillery, but not many rockets.
        I see.

      • talknic
        talknic on February 12, 2015, 7:41 am

        @ JeffB
        “1) We (the USA) aren’t a nation of peace. We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. We will over the next 10 years spend on upgrading our nuclear forces what Israel spends on the entire IDF.”

        “We (the USA)” Right, you’re American, not Israeli … got that sorted … but wait … what’s this?

        ” What we do, we do as a people. We are one people. Judaism through Israel is returning to its natural state a national church, becoming nothing more or less than the Israeli religion. We live, die, thrive or wither together. Our choices drive our destiny”. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/misrepresents-resolution-occupation/comment-page-1#comment-746220

        “3) Iron dome has some pretty sophisticated stuff.”

        Yeh, it has the amazing capability to convince people it is protecting Israelis. However, the statistics show that no less Israelis died with it than without it.

  9. Neil Schipper
    Neil Schipper on February 11, 2015, 12:15 pm

    David Palumbo-Liu,

    You say:

    .. illegal practices, practices that do great harm and damage to a captive population. Period.

    But the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported that 11% of Palestinian households traveled outside Palestine during 2012, to visit relatives and friends, for religious purposes, for leisure and for business or work purposes. Are you claiming North Korea – style captivity? Can you clarify?

    You say:

    We now know that Israel knew the youths were already dead when it used the pretext of the search for the youths for its brutal and illegal act of collective punishment ..

    I’m not sure who this we is, but, I’d like to know if you favor requiring police to halt the investigation of a kidnapping in progress upon hearing gunshots on a cell phone. It would be an unusual preference.

    The Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford University should consider coming out and saying that the cell phone recording altered the probability that the youths had been killed, but offered nothing close to certainty.

    You write:

    The United Nations found, between July 8 and August 27, 2014:

    2104 Palestinians killed, of whom were 1,462 civilians, including 495 children and 253 women.

    Is the professor satisfied that the U.N. performed an independant investigation, or are they repeating figures provided by Hamas? Is the professor aware that Hamas has a deep interest in inflating its civilian casualty numbers, and may be tempted to report armed 16- and 17-year old militants as civilian children, and armed female militants as civilian women?

    Regarding

    .. the ardent and systematic effort on the part of the Israeli government to collectively punish a population, destroy its infrastructure, and terrorize its civilian population

    There is important context missing in this characterization of the summer war: the stated goals of Hamas; that Israel was acting in concert with the Palestinian Authority and the Egyptian security establishment; that the PA had recently learned that Hamas was preparing a coup against the PA in the West bank; finally, that the PA provided target information to Israel, in order to inflict severe losses against Hamas personnel and command and control capabilities.

    This information is necessary to have a fuller picture of this war.

    Again, this action was unleashed upon a captive Palestinian people on the pretext that Israel was searching for the missing youths.

    Repetition does not make things true. The best analyses I’ve read are quite clear: neither Israel nor Hamas wanted this war; the kidnapping and murder of the youths was carried out by a Hamas cell supported by a Hamas network; the higher political levels of Hamas did not have prior knowledge of the operation, but applauded it publically when it became known.

    The sequence of events I’ve described is quite public, and is not, so far as I know, contested by either Israel or Hamas.

    On what basis do you claim otherwise?

    If there is no such basis, you risk earning a reputation as a purveyor of falsehoods

    with which Stanford cannot be associated without casting real doubt as to its commitment to the standard of ethics it professes.

    You wrote:

    [I]n accordance with international human rights conventions, the population of an occupied territory is supposed to be under the protection of its occupier.

    Those conventions are important, and are surely intended to apply to a civilian non-combatant population upon cessation of hostilities. Those conventions couldn’t possibly apply to a territory of weapon-bearing militants openly calling for the destruction of the occupier and engaging them militarily.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye on February 11, 2015, 1:14 pm

      You say 11% of Palestinian families travelled outside of Palestine in 2012.

      However, your own link says rather different – from that many families at least ONE member of the family travelled.

      You then start wiffling about a so called “investigation of a kidnapping in progress”. Yet the Israeli forces weren’t doing much investigation during those 3 weeks. They were out in force to destroy homes and livelihoods, killing numbers of completely inocent people and stealing over $3.5million in money and property.

      I’ll not bother with reading the rest of your nonsense if that’s your standard.

      • Neil Schipper
        Neil Schipper on February 11, 2015, 1:28 pm

        Exact quote:

        Only 11% of Palestinian households with at least one member in the family traveled outside Palestine during 2012, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) said Monday.

        It’s a very strangely worded stat. Maybe a language thing. I don’t think I badly misrepresented it, but better would be: “Only 11% of Palestinian households had one or more members travel outside Palestine during 2012..”

    • pjdude
      pjdude on February 11, 2015, 2:05 pm

      you seem confused to what is in the fourth geneva conventions
      http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_II:_General_Protection_of_Populations_Against_Certain_Consequences_of_War this should help. a protected persons are just that protected no matter who is fighting on there land. so no despite your claim the palestinians aren’t protected they are. what is it with you zionists and your defense of war crimes?

    • talknic
      talknic on February 12, 2015, 8:01 am

      @ Neil Schipper
      “But the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported that 11% of Palestinian households traveled outside Palestine during 2012, to visit relatives and friends, for religious purposes, for leisure and for business or work purposes. Are you claiming North Korea – style captivity? Can you clarify?”

      An occupied population is a captive population. Pointing to a hole in the clouds doesn’t negate the clouds that surround the hole

      “I’m not sure who this we is, but, I’d like to know if you favor requiring police to halt the investigation of a kidnapping in progress upon hearing gunshots on a cell phone. It would be an unusual preference”

      Immediate triangulation is possible on cell phones.

      “Is the professor satisfied that the U.N. performed an independant investigation, or are they repeating figures provided by Hamas? Is the professor aware that Hamas has a deep interest in inflating its civilian casualty numbers, and may be tempted to report armed 16- and 17-year old militants as civilian children, and armed female militants as civilian women?”

      Perhaps the 1st question should be answered 1st, before launching into the ubiquitous Israeli propaganda mantra

      “There is important context missing in this characterization of the summer war: the stated goals of Hamas; that Israel was acting in concert with the Palestinian Authority and the Egyptian security establishment; that the PA had recently learned that Hamas was preparing a coup against the PA in the West bank; finally, that the PA provided target information to Israel, in order to inflict severe losses against Hamas personnel and command and control capabilities.”

      Wow! A whole nest of unproven speculations.

      “Repetition does not make things true.”

      Israel did not proclaim any borders Israel did not proclaim any borders ( http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf ) ( WMDs WMDs WMDs WMDs )

      “Those conventions are important, and are surely intended to apply to a civilian non-combatant population upon cessation of hostilities”

      Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

      “Those conventions couldn’t possibly apply to a territory of weapon-bearing militants openly calling for the destruction of the occupier and engaging them militarily”

      Or armed settlers or Israeli military in non-Israeli territory

  10. a blah chick
    a blah chick on February 11, 2015, 12:48 pm

    JeffB said: “Yes! I can disagree with a state’s policies without wanting to destroy the nation. I might back regime change in Iran and I don’t back ending Persia as a concept. Iran discriminates that doesn’t mean it deserves to die.”

    I’m sure the entire Iranian nation breathes a sigh of relief after reading that.

    • JeffB
      JeffB on February 11, 2015, 2:01 pm

      @a blah chick

      They should. If Obama’s policy of a strategic realignment fails since Clinton isn’t nearly as tied to the goal of a shift towards Iran the result is going to be a policy leaning towards regime change. The USA might very well go to war with Iran in the next 2 decades to implement that.

      The Iranians may very well fail to appreciate what the USA army would be capable of if our goals weren’t rather humane. But that doesn’t mean the sane shouldn’t appreciate what a military as powerful as the USA’s is capable of if it goals similar to BDS’s but applied to Iran.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 6:25 pm

        “They should.”

        “JeffyB” You should thank G-d every day you are not a fish. You’ll bite on anything. So you’n Obama have it all worked out, this Iran thing?

  11. lonely rico
    lonely rico on February 11, 2015, 5:36 pm

    >JeffB
    The Iranians may very well fail to appreciate what the USA army would be capable of if our goals weren’t rather humane.

    Have you confused “goal” with “methods” JeffB ? I’m not sure it is accurate to qualify the US army’s goals as “humane”, but let’s leave that question for another time.

    Not that long ago, the METHODS of the US army were on display in Fallujah, which I imagine the Iranians probably noticed, the brutal massacre/destruction taking place roughly 80 miles west of the Iranian border.

    I suddenly realize what the B in JeffB stands for –
    B*LLSH*T

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 11, 2015, 9:48 pm

      Oh, “JeffyB” is a prize, a live one. A regular Tea Party Zionist. And gosh, there isn’t anything he doesn’t know. A polymath, a savant, a mayven. And he’s “all three!” Well two out of three ain’t bad.

  12. RoHa
    RoHa on February 11, 2015, 6:32 pm

    ”The Iranians may very well fail to appreciate what the USA army would be capable of if our goals weren’t rather humane. ”

    With Iraq on one border and Afghanistan on another, I’m sure the Iranians have a very clear idea what the US army, at its most humane, is capable of.

  13. Mooser
    Mooser on February 11, 2015, 6:33 pm

    “shouldn’t appreciate what a military as powerful as the USA’s is capable of if it goals similar to BDS’s but applied to Iran.”

    Yes, the BDS movement is this close to attaining BDS by military embargo!

    Let me be among the several people to remark that you are insane, “JeffyB” Gone, baby, gone.

    Oh BTW, Queen Victoria, can you decide whether you speak as “we” for the US or as “we” for Israel or “we” for the Jews. Hey, if it’s all three, that’s cool, too.

  14. just
    just on February 11, 2015, 6:44 pm

    All of the anti-bds’ers ranting here will undoubtedly appreciate this, she is with you!

    “In apparent response to the recent vote in support of divestment by the University of California at Davis student government, TV personality Roseanne Barr issued this call for sectarian violence……
    …………
    It elicited a number of approving responses from Barr’s almost three hundred thousand followers on Twitter.

    Barr’s tweet came the same evening a gunman murdered three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, raising fears among Muslim communities nationwide.

    But UC Davis itself seems unconcerned. Asked by The Electronic Intifada if the university had a response to Barr’s call for violence or heightened concerns for students safety on campus, Andy Fell, co-associate director of media relations wrote, “I’m not going to comment on that tweet. I think it speaks for itself.”

    Fell referred The Electronic Intifada to a 6 February public letter signed by UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and several campus chaplains stating that “recent campus events have surfaced the worst forms of intolerance and bigotry toward both our Jewish and Muslim communities.”

    Despite the fact that it is a political conflict – divestment from Israel’s occupation – that has animated tensions on campus, the letter calls for interfaith outreach between Jewish and Muslim organizations.

    Katehi is no neutral party; she has condemned the stance of students supporting divestment.

    In the days before the letter was issued, Katehi was criticized, as The Electronic Intifada reported, for ignoring a barrage of hateful, Islamophobic and racist attacks launched against Arab and Muslim students – including a student senator.”

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/uc-davis-has-no-comment-roseanne-barrs-call-sectarian-violence-campus

    I won’t sully MW with Barr’s tweets, but they are repugnant,inciting to violence, Islamophobic, etc.

  15. JeffB
    JeffB on February 11, 2015, 9:19 pm

    @Eljay

    (And still not a word about JeffBeee’s anti-Semitic assertion that all Jews are responsible for the crimes of some (Zio-supremacist) Jews. Interesting.)

    Not that interesting. Hopmi and Yonah are Zionists. They get that Israel is the agency by which Jews as a nation take collective action. Zionism is today accepted by the Jewish nation. All but fringes are Zionist. What we do, we do as a people. We are one people. Judaism through Israel is returning to its natural state a national church, becoming nothing more or less than the Israeli religion. We live, die, thrive or wither together. Our choices drive our destiny.

    Japan is the home of the Japanese. The Japanese people are collectively responsible for the actions of Japan. And similarly the Jews and Israel.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod on February 11, 2015, 10:09 pm

      Are you typing from the wine cabinet?
      Just trying to beat Mooser to the punch…

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 11, 2015, 11:46 pm

        Wow, “JeffyB” is a regular Queen Victoria! When he talks about the United States, he says “we”.
        Now, “JeffyB” is doing the “we” thing for Israel and the “we Jews” thing, too!

        Yes, Your Majesty, Queen “JeffyB”, speak for us, “JeffyB”

        And gee, I thought the “fringes” was the most important part, but JeffyB don’t like them “fringes”. You are priceless, “JeffyB”

        I’m so glad Mondo has reams of your stuff, “JeffyB”, in archives where it will be useful to your daughter in college. She can read it and feel more “comfortable” about Zionism!
        But wow, “JeffyB” when I read you I sure can understand the 58%. I don’t think anybody explains it better.

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 3:03 am

        Aw…it’s just the wine talkin’…a glass for him…and another glass for his other him.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:42 pm

        “a glass for him…and another glass for his other him”

        Well after all “we” is drinking for (by my arithmetic) 325 million people. Entire population of US and Israel. That’s a whole lotta manischevitz, pardner!

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 11, 2015, 11:54 pm

      “Judaism through Israel is returning to its natural state a national church,” “JeffyB”, one of his finest! I’m sure Hophmi and Yonah are ready to co-sign!

      Better go work on the birth-rate, “JeffyB” Oh BTW, JeffyB, is the “national (Jewish) church” Orthodox, or Conservative, or Reform, or Re-constructionist, or Chassidic, or Secular? Just asking. Certainly we can’t have all those denominations arguing over it. Which was chosen (no pun intended) to lead Judaism?

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 3:12 am

        As long as they all bow down to him, they “are all one.”
        Wait a minute…are we on the verge of a freudian breakthru? We need a doctors second opinion. Oh Dr. Bronner…are we “all is one”…or is JeffB just giving himself the soft soap, again?

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 11:30 am

        “As long as they all bow down to him, they “are all one.””

        Remember that nudibranch! We can be anything JeffyB wants us to be, do anything he wants us to do. Imaginery friends or the best, and imaginery polities even better.

        Why we are being treated to step-by-step guided tour of the mental disintegration of an American middle-class, middle-brow brow-beater, who has eaten out of one too many cheap aluminum pans I’ll never know. But it’s a treat! (Still, don’t eat the eggs!)

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 12, 2015, 12:02 am

      “The Japanese people are collectively responsible for the actions of Japan. And similarly the Jews and Israel.”

      So you are just fine and dandy with those Jews getting shot down in Paris supermarkets? Or anywhere collectively responsible Jews are?

      Yes sir, you sure can tell how afraid these Zionist are of anti-Semitism! They know it’s terrible power, and would never do anything, not one single thing, to dare it or provoke it. Oh no!

      “Hopmi and Yonah are Zionists. They get that Israel is the agency by which Jews as a nation take collective action” “JeffyB”

      Now c’mon, Hophmi and Yonah, you heard what “JeffyB” said. You will come forward and endorse it, right? Tribal unity, you know.

    • talknic
      talknic on February 12, 2015, 1:10 am

      @ JeffB ” They get that Israel is the agency by which Jews as a nation take collective action”

      Uh? Can one be one a part of this alleged Jewish nation while disagreeing with Israel’s
      ‘collective’ illegal expansionist policies ? If no, why no?

      If yes, then surely it’s the duty of all Jewish nationals to prevent Israel from delegitimizing itself by being in breach of International Law and the UN Charter!

      “Zionism is today accepted by the Jewish nation”

      Is it possible to be a part of the Jewish Nation and be against Zionism’s ongoing illegal expansionism in territories outside the state of Israel. If no, why not?

      “What we do, we do as a people. We are one people. “

      “we” ? You’re Jewish or Israeli or an alleged Jewish national

      “Judaism through Israel is returning to its natural state a national church, becoming nothing more or less than the Israeli religion. We live, die, thrive or wither together. Our choices drive our destiny.”

      Wonderful. Let it happen in Israel, not in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

      “Japan is the home of the Japanese”

      Uh huh. Japan is a country. All Japanese are citizens regardless of which religion they observe. Jews is not a country

      “The Japanese people are collectively responsible for the actions of Japan”,/em>

      If they do not have dual citizenship, Japanese Americans are not collectively responsible for the actions of Japan, nor are Japanese Israelis unless they have dual citizenship. Japanese Jews without dual or Israeli citizenship, are not Israelis

      …. And similarly the Jews and Israel.”

      Japanese Jews without dual or Israeli citizenship, are not Israelis ..

      • Kay24
        Kay24 on February 12, 2015, 1:19 am

        Very well state Talknic. I think you put things into perspective, very clearly. In other word, the BS has been very nicely dealt with. Heh.

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 3:16 am

        As long as they all bow down to him, they “are all one.”
        Wait a minute…are we on the verge of a freudian breakthru? We need a doctors second opinion. Oh Dr. Bronner…are we “all is one”…or is JeffB just giving himself the soft soap, again?

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 3:20 am

        I wonder if the poor boy has something in his blood that makes him so delusional. I hate the idea that in 100 years science will discover it…and then I’ll be the brute for persecuting him. I hope it is the same thing that explains Tea Partiers, too.

      • JeffB
        JeffB on February 12, 2015, 5:52 am

        @talknic

        Uh? Can one be one a part of this alleged Jewish nation while disagreeing with Israel’s ‘collective’ illegal expansionist policies ? If no, why no?

        Yes. Wile belief in the UN is a minority position it is not a disqualifying one. It is still within the Overton Window for Jews.

        If yes, then surely it’s the duty of all Jewish nationals to prevent Israel from delegitimizing itself by being in breach of International Law and the UN Charter!

        There is an assumption there that the UN’s interpretation of international law is correct and violating the UN Charter is a delegitimizing activity. I don’t see evidence for that. Countries and people violate the charter all the time.

        Uh huh. Japan is a country. All Japanese are citizens regardless of which religion they observe.

        Well yes. Japan doesn’t have a state church. It does have a strong ethnic identity tied with citizenship. Israel does have a state church but has a weaker ethnic identity. Russia is arguably closer.

        If they do not have dual citizenship, Japanese Americans are not collectively responsible for the actions of Japan

        I’d say that’s true if they consider themselves to have renounced ties. While the Japanese frown upon leaving and living abroad for an extended period of time is seen as diminishing one’s ties, marrying out and being the product of intermarriage is what really severs your Japanese ties.

        Japanese Jews without dual or Israeli citizenship, are not Israelis

        Japanese Jews are not considered really Japanese by either the Jews or the Japanese. They are sometimes citizens if there family has been there since the 19th century ()most of those went to Israel) but not nationals. Your analogy proves the opposite of what you would like it to.

      • just
        just on February 12, 2015, 8:57 am

        Thanks talknic~ that was a glorious succession of salvos!

        I felt like I was watching an expert marksman yelling pull, and nailing each and every clay pigeon!

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 9:41 am

        “Pigeons”.
        I like it. Seem to recall it being a term used in old gangster films.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:47 pm

        “Japan doesn’t have a state church. It does have a strong ethnic identity tied with citizenship. Israel does have a state church”

        “JeffyB”: “Israel does have a state church”

        Naturally all the other Zionists on this board (board!? that’s right, what were the name of Hophmi’s Muslim outreach groups?) will hurry to co-sign this.

      • talknic
        talknic on February 14, 2015, 6:01 am

        @ JeffB ” Wile belief in the UN is a minority position…”

        You’ll say anything, absolutely anything rather than admit you’re wrong.

        “There is an assumption there that the UN’s interpretation of international law is correct and violating the UN Charter is a delegitimizing activity. I don’t see evidence for that. Countries and people violate the charter all the time.”

        How many wrongs do you need to make a right JeffB?

        “Japanese Jews are not considered really Japanese by either the Jews or the Japanese”

        Says who?

        ” Your analogy proves the opposite of what you would like it to”

        Your denial doesn’t change what’s been written

    • eljay
      eljay on February 12, 2015, 7:51 am

      || JeffBeee: Not that interesting. ||

      Anti-Semitism (on your part) and hypocrisy (on theirs) isn’t about “interesting”.

      || Japan is the home of the Japanese. The Japanese people are collectively responsible for the actions of Japan. And similarly the Jews and Israel. ||

      Japan is the home of the Japanese. Israel is the home of Israelis. Not all Japanese people are responsible for the crimes of some Japanese people. Not all Israelis are responsible for the crimes of some Israelis. Not all Muslims are responsible for the crimes of some Muslims.

      Not all Jews are responsible for the crimes of some Jews. Non-Israeli Jews are not responsible for the crimes of Israelis or Israel.

      The fact that you want to hold all Jews accountable for the crimes of some Jews is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. The fact that you want to hold all Jews accountable for the crimes of the state of Israel is even more f*cked up.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 2:08 pm

        “Japan is the home of the Japanese.”

        And when, for a while, Japan was at its worst, with militarism and cruel racist colonialism running rampant Japan’s State Religion was called “State Shintoism”, wasn’t it?

        So you just keep pushing that Jewish-State-Church thing, Jeffy. I’m sure many distinguished Zionists and spokesman for Israel will weigh in to agree and expand on this idea.

        OH, BTW, “JeffyB” how does this “State-Jewish-Church” thing square up with all the values the US and ISrael are supposed to share?

    • Kris
      Kris on February 12, 2015, 10:53 am

      @JeffB: “Japan is the home of the Japanese. The Japanese people are collectively responsible for the actions of Japan. And similarly the Jews and Israel. ”

      Wow. That wasn’t why the U.S. interred Japanese Americans during WWII, in our own concentration camps, but it might have been a more justifiable excuse than the one they used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

      The U.S. government actually apologized and paid reparations, but maybe the U.S. was right in the first place, but for the wrong reason? You are saying that American Jews are collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and should be punished for Israel’s crimes?

      It would be expensive to have to round them up and inter them. Though maybe our for-profit prison industry could use this boost? Maybe we should just freeze their bank accounts to remove their excessive influence on our government and media until Israel stops violating international law?

      I’d pre-pay all that college tuition now, if I were you.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 6:31 pm

        See, Kris, it works like this. If a Japanese person comes to the US, marries another Japanese person, their child is also fully responsible for the actions of Japan. Now, If a Japanese person comes to the US, and ends up marrying anybody other than another person from Japan, their child is only half-responsible for the things Japan does. And then if that person the half responsible one, marries another non-Japanese responsible person, responsibility can be reduced to one-quarter, or less.
        That’s who they get away with stuff, and evade responsibility!

  16. piotr
    piotr on February 11, 2015, 11:53 pm

    Bait: “We believe that the resolution of highly complex geopolitical issues, such as the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict, requires the development of thoughtful and constructive approaches that respect the dignity and rights of both peoples.”

    Switch (quotes from JeffB, a self-styled authority on the psyche of the Jewish people): “Cows before they are slaughtered for meat or kept for breeding and milk have the kind of security French Jews. The farmer has the kind of security that Israelis have. ” Farmer, always ready to slaughter the cows at any sign of danger, Full accommodation for the dignity and rights. Mind you, the slaughter was approved, nay, demanded by assorted Jewish clerics, who demanded revenge and “not stopping at collecting 300 foreskins”.

    It is easy to show that the last war in Gaza was basically a jihad, a holy war demanded by religious sentiments. Modern National Orthodox are particularly virulent, but in time of need, Reform rabbis may join the chorus (except for the talk about the foreskins). I find it quit peculiar. There are other conflicts in the world, Armenian-Azeri, Russian-Ukrainian, Serbian-Albanian, etc. but clergy urging to wash the ground with the blood of enemies is relatively rare. Verbally, contemporary Zionists are right there with ISIL.

    Show “proper Zionist” proposal respecting the dignity and rights of the other side, not offered by the “anti-Zionist fringe”, and try to complain again about the “lack of balance”.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 11, 2015, 11:59 pm

      “(quotes from JeffB, a self-styled authority on the psyche of the Jewish people)”

      Are you sure “piotr” you understand the extent of “JeffyB’s authority?
      He is not just an expert on the Jewish psyche. No! He is the Jewish People, and refers to himself as “we”!!
      (Cuckoo! Cuckoo!) Did the clock just strike two?

      • Kay24
        Kay24 on February 12, 2015, 12:17 am

        That is how they slip up, the “we” somehow gives us the clue, to where their heads are, and where they come from. It is hardly with American interests in mind.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:54 pm

        Oh, Kay, it’s only a few comments from here that “JeffyB” goes and “we”s all over the United States, too.

        I tell you, that boy is a legion in his own mind! He contains multitudes!

    • JeffB
      JeffB on February 12, 2015, 12:52 am

      @piotr

      It is easy to show that the last war in Gaza was basically a jihad, a holy war demanded by religious sentiments.

      No it isn’t. Israel has a mix of religious and secular. If the war on Gaza were a religious holy war then we would expect substantially different attitudes towards it between the religious and non-religious and that is not what we see. Rather there was a uniformity of opinion among all sides that saw the Gazan’s attack as intolerable and backed the Israeli government’s response.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:49 pm

        .” Israel has a mix of religious and secular. “

        Making Israel’s military decisions? Do the religious look at chicken entrails to see military portents. And of course, by “secular” you mean “politicians”.

      • talknic
        talknic on February 12, 2015, 9:58 pm

        @ JeffB
        “No it isn’t. Israel has a mix of religious and secular”

        In the same country? Not likely according to this guy http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/misrepresents-resolution-occupation/comment-page-1#comment-746456

      • piotr
        piotr on February 13, 2015, 9:40 am

        Secular Israeli tend to believe (or claim so) that they have a God given right to the Promised Land. Israel has a similar problem as Pakistan: the countries were created by mostly secular ideologies that were based on religious differences. Why Pakistanis are not Indians, and Israelis are not Europeans, Arabs, Ethiopians etc.? Thus the role of religion is increasing, and within the religion itself, there are parallel disturbing changes.

        In a nutshel, a secular citizen of Pakistan or Israel is either schizophrenic (more frequent) or unpatriotic (the fringe). In other words, the normal, i.e. schizophrenic, patriotic citizens share the religiously motivated attitudes.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 3:33 am

      Yep, ISIL. That is where this is all headed. Back to the hay day of Leviticus.

  17. Mayhem
    Mayhem on February 12, 2015, 7:55 am

    Most importantly the Stanford University student senate has defeated an Israel divestment resolution.

    The Associated Students of Stanford University had nine votes for the measure and five against, with one abstention. But to pass, the measure required 66 percent of the senators to approve and finished with 64 percent.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 12, 2015, 5:52 pm

      Just ONE PERCENT off! ONLY ONE PERCENT!! Next time it’ll pass, sure.

      Oh, unless “Maythem” and “JeffyB” get to the Stanford campus first, and Zio ‘splain it all to the students.

  18. just
    just on February 12, 2015, 8:33 pm

    yoo-hoo, JeffB! Here’s something you can ponder:

    “ICC receives report debunking Israel’s “self-defense” claims for Gaza attack

    The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) has submitted a report to the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor debunking Israeli claims that last summer’s attack on Gaza was an act of “self-defense.”

    Since the court began a preliminary examination into the events in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip beginning from 13 June 2014, Israel has attempted to ward off a full investigation by claiming that its 51-day assault on Gaza was an act of defense.

    NLG, a US human and civil rights organization, also sent its report to US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who have suggested Israel’s right to defend itself justified the air bombardment and ground assault that left more than 2,200 people, the vast majority civilians, dead.

    In their cover letter to the ICC and the White House, NLG notes that numerous respected sources have alleged war crimes, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

    “The central message that Israeli forces were protecting Israeli citizens from Hamas rockets was so ubiquitous in the Western media as to eclipse war crimes allegations,” said report author and Vermont attorney James Marc Leas. “But the facts and law do not support the self-defense claims.””

    ………
    Israeli attacks came first

    Analyzing the timeline of events (as reported by Israeli think-tank Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) in early July 2014 that precipitated Israel’s launch of “Operation Protective Edge,” the NLG report shows that Israel’s air and ground attacks on occupied Palestinian territories preceded any rocket fire from Hamas.

    “The Hamas rocket fire was neither actually occurring nor imminent when Israeli forces launched a non-judicial execution in Gaza, killing a Hamas member and severely wounding three civilians on 11 June,” the report states. ”Nor when Israeli forces launched their massive assault on the West Bank on 13 June 2014. The Israeli attacks were not necessary to stop rockets because rockets were not being fired at the time by Hamas and non-Hamas groups. Nor was rocket fire imminently threatened at the time.”

    ……
    But NLG’s report notes that previous statements made by Netanyahu contradict the assertion that defense motivated Israel’s attack on Gaza, such as wishing to break up the Palestinian Authority “consensus government” formed with the assent of Hamas.

    The NLG points out that according to both international law and the findings of the International Court of Justice, an occupying power cannot base an invasion on self-defense.

    The Rome Statute that set up the ICC, moreover, allows for the possibility that acts based on self-defense can also be criminal, the report explains. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure and using indiscriminate weapons in densely populated areas does not abide by the rules of proportionality.”

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/icc-receives-report-debunking-israels-self-defense-claims-gaza-attack

    There ya’ go!

    • Philemon
      Philemon on February 12, 2015, 9:07 pm

      JeffB: “Not really. I have a general pleading that I think most of the 4th Geneva convention is completely unrealistic. I pretty much oppose most of post WWII international law in other situations. For example I agree with Putin not the UN on Ukraine. That isn’t a special pleading it is a generalized strong belief in self determination. While I favor some of the liberation movements of the anti-colonial movement I think good deal of their ideology was destructive and the UN did poorly to adopt it. Far more sensible were the 19th century international standards which were based on a realistic and thus enforceable standards of conduct.”

      Sorry, just. You won’t sway JeffB with those arguments. They make too much sense.

      C’mon, this is a guy who thinks world powers were remiss in not consulting him about international law post WWII, if not before. He’s completely narcissistic personality disorder all the way He knows better than anyone about anything, however contrary to reality. And we’re all just puppets in a show where he’s the hero, so far as he’s concerned.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 13, 2015, 11:42 am

        “He’s completely narcissistic personality disorder all the way He knows better than anyone about anything, however contrary to reality.”

        Thank you, Philemon. I was sorta getting that feeling, but I didn’t want to say anything. I mean, his narcissism is so subtle it’s hard to know.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 9:32 pm

      I loved reading that, lad…it was like poetry, it was.

  19. just
    just on February 12, 2015, 10:25 pm

    WOW~ via Max Blumenthal’s twitter:

    “U. Mass. Will Not Admit Iranian Students to Schools of Engineering and Natural Sciences

    This announcement was recently posted on the website of the graduate school of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst:

    The University has determined that recent governmental sanctions pose a significant challenge to its ability to provide a full program of education and research for Iranian students in certain disciplines and programs. Because we must ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the University has determined that it will no longer admit Iranian national students to specific programs in the College of Engineering (i.e., Chemical Engineering, Electrical & Computer Engineering, Mechanical & Industrial Engineering) and in the College of Natural Sciences (i.e., Physics, Chemistry, Microbiology, and Polymer Science & Engineering) effective February 1, 2015.

    During the fight over the American Studies Association’s vote for an academic boycott of Israel, putative defenders of academic freedom made a lot of noise about the threat that the boycott posed to academic exchange and international conversation.

    But as many of us pointed out the time, nothing in the ASA vote precluded the exchange of individual scholars or students between the United States and Israel.

    Now we have a public university, claiming to act in accordance with US policy, officially banning Iranian national students from entire graduate schools.

    Will those putative defenders of academic freedom from the BDS fight speak out against this policy—and speak out far more forcefully than they did then, since this policy really does threaten academic freedom in the way they imagined the academic boycott did?

    Or will they defend the university’s decision on the grounds of national security or the need for universities to act in accordance with US law? If they take that path, of course, they’re merely admitting the point most of suspected they believed in anyway: that academic freedom really is not their highest value at all.

    So what will those defenders of academic freedom say—and, more important, do—now?”

    http://coreyrobin.com/2015/02/12/u-mass-will-not-admit-iranian-students-to-schools-of-engineering-and-natural-sciences/

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 10:38 pm

      That’s U. Mass. Shooting America in the foot.
      Would like to see a list of “the deciders.”

      • just
        just on February 12, 2015, 10:52 pm

        Me, too!

        That’s exactly what I was trying to search for.

        All I’ve found is the full statement:

        http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/sites/default/files/iranian_student_admissions_2_2015.pdf

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 10:55 pm

        The link Max provided wouldn’t open for me.

      • just
        just on February 12, 2015, 11:02 pm

        Try this link to Crooked Timber:

        http://crookedtimber.org/2015/02/13/u-mass-will-no-longer-admit-iranian-students-to-graduate-schools-of-engineering-and-natural-sciences/

        (Though I only cut the full article by a bit, as required)

      • CigarGod
        CigarGod on February 12, 2015, 11:08 pm

        Thanks. The “can be found here” link won’t open for me. I bet I can find it on u mass site.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on February 12, 2015, 11:28 pm

        It’s a funny old Zionist world. Jews were excluded from universities in the US pre ww2.
        The ADL grew out of that time.

        Deep Dish are Iranian American and better than anything I’ve heard coming out of Israel .
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6wEviZRxjE

        especially at 42 min

        I suppose it makes sense. Iran has a bigger population and a cultural history that didn’t start in the late 40s .

        Israel is a very shallow dish. A Petri dish of paranoia.

      • just
        just on February 13, 2015, 12:02 am

        My cousin raves about Deep Dish!

        Thanks for your comment & link.

      • MRW
        MRW on February 13, 2015, 3:02 pm

        @seafoid, re: Deep Dish,

        There was a group that played on the streets of Manhattan–specifically 6th Ave and around 51 St.–that was doing what Deep Dish is doing. I would always stop and give them whatever spare change I had. It was not what was popular then. I loved it, but then I had been making synthesized music for about two years by that point. Whoever they were they were waaaay ahead of their time.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 15, 2015, 11:49 am

        “It’s a funny old Zionist world. Jews were excluded from universities in the US pre ww2.”

        Seafoid, at that time, discrimination, on any basis, was legal. Jews could discriminate, too, if they so desired.

  20. JeffB
    JeffB on February 13, 2015, 8:23 am

    @Talknic

    amalla:The West Bank and Gaza belong to the same country! //
    jeffB: “Do they?”

    They’re both part of what remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ What remained of Palestine has never been legally split from Palestine ( corpus separatum was never instituted . Palestine still includes Jerusalem – read UNSC res 476 )

    You aren’t defending Amalla’s thesis but your own. Amalla is going for the Palestinians own the 1967 not the 1948 partition plan. You can’t be defending her argument while arguing for an entirely different thesis.

    As for legally split… There have been many UN resolutions, world court decisions… since then accepting the 1967 borders. I’ve pointed them out to you over and over and over.

    Can you point to any official document whereby they became legally separated?

    Sure the Gaza unilateral disengagement plan of 2003 is about Gaza not the West Bank. Moreover if you count things like Jerusalem when Israel annexed Jerusalem and didn’t annex Gaza they had different legal status. When Israel over and over has claimed that West Bank is disputed territory governed under the Oslo Area A, B, C while they have made no claim to Gaza they have different status.

    “Their populations have different national characteristics”
    Irrelevant. Unless of course you’d like to apply the same criteria to Israel, the USA, Australia, the UK

    I’m not the one who invented the criteria of nation-states. The nation state is virtually a priori concept in political science and isn’t a matter for choice. You don’t debate the gravitational constant you engineer around it. The national criteria applies to all political arrangements under all circumstances. The UK lost quite a lot of territory over the last 100 years because the people had different nationalities. You have a bunch of Irish here, ask them why they aren’t part of the UK.

    “They have different governments which have fought a civil war against each other less than a decade ago.”

    They have different administrations. When was the last Palestinian election to elect a different Palestinian Government

    About 5 weeks ago when there were riots in Gaza about budget for Fatah and for Hamas. Hamas wasn’t elected in Gaza they held a coup and overthrew Fatah. But a government doesn’t have to be elected to exist. Most of the governments on the planet are unelected.

    “They have different religious preferences”
    How many religious preferences in Israel, the USA , Australia, the UK?

    At the time when religion was a key component of national identity minority preferences were a serious issue in the UK. Today the dominant religion is secular and that works as a national religion. In the USA the issue has been handled through a very interesting assimilation scheme where anabaptist theology gets imported at an individual level into every sect and thus everything in American functionally just becomes flavors of Baptist.

    I don’t Australia well enough to comment.

    “They aren’t physically connected”
    Neither is Israel by its official and only legal borders

    So what? The functional borders are connected. That’s evidence for how your “official and legal borders” which just mean UN nonsense don’t mean anything. Borders are what armies establish. The official policy of the United Nations as per agreements of 1946, 48, 1951, 1954, 1998 is that Korea is a single united country. And BTW both Koreas at least play some degree of lip service to that concept. And that official policy doesn’t mean anything on the ground. Because the policy of North and South Korea armies as supported by China and the USA is that they are two distinct countries. And that’s what really matters.

    Nor are Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, California.

    Texas and California are physically connected to the USA. Alaska is close. Hawaii is much more problematic. Hawaii is a different culture, it is physically separate, it has different population flows, it has different political and religious ideology. And likely over the long term the USA will not be willing or able to keep it. The USA is enormously powerful right now so this situation might last for centuries but if there was anyway to bet I’d assume by 2265 CE Hawaii is not in the USA.

    Xmas Island and the Australian mainland. The UK and the Falklands.

    The Falklands you have an overwhelmingly British supporting population living near Argentina. Moreover the UK is more militarily powerful than Argentina. And still the UK has trouble holding it. Physical separation isn’t a deal breaker but I think the Falklands demonstrates how much of an issue it is.

    “One is independent from Israel the other being partially annexed”

    Both are occupied. Israel has never legally annexed or legally acquired any territory.

    Of course it has. It annexed both the 1967 territory, the Golan and greater Jerusalem. There is this thing called the Knesset when it says stuff that becomes the law.

    It’s borders are the same as the day they were proclaimed in order for Israel to be recognized.

    Sure. It is just that the entity which taxes, administers criminal law, defends against foreign attack, organizes public functions, determines the extent of contracts, regulates healthcare, provides for the common welfare…. has absolutely nothing to do with “borders” in your sense.

    How are things going in Xarnia today?

    “Other than the UN says so what evidence is there that they are the same country?”

    The UN is the majority. You’re spouting a minority opinion that has it’s basis in complete bullsh*t .

    The majority of what? If the UN actually represented the majority of nations why is it so ineffectual on so many issues. For example the UN has unequivocally told the factions in Yemen to stop fighting multiple times. Yet they are still fighting. How can that be happening?

    • talknic
      talknic on February 14, 2015, 5:51 am

      @ JeffB “You aren’t defending Amalla’s thesis but your own”

      I am not the UNSC.

      “As for legally split… There have been many UN resolutions, world court decisions… since then accepting the 1967 borders. I’ve pointed them out to you over and over and over”

      Only a real idiot would lie where their words can be checked. You have NOT shown anything because there is nothing to show.

      You have not been honest on a single point.

      The Knesset record shows there was no annexation of the Golan

      International Law and the UN Charter trump Israeli state law in non-Israeli territories.

      The UN/UNSC does not us the weasel words ‘disputed territories’. It does say ” Israel, the Occupying Power”

  21. JeffB
    JeffB on February 13, 2015, 12:23 pm

    @piotr

    Secular Israeli tend to believe (or claim so) that they have a God given right to the Promised Land. Israel has a similar problem as Pakistan: the countries were created by mostly secular ideologies that were based on religious differences. Why Pakistanis are not Indians, and Israelis are not Europeans, Arabs, Ethiopians etc.? Thus the role of religion is increasing, and within the religion itself, there are parallel disturbing changes.

    I don’t see secular Israelis making that claim. Their claim is mostly: they were born in Israel and everyone has the right to right to live where they are born. It is the anti-colonalist movement that needs to make a claim to a permanent racial inheritance over land not secular Israelis. On top of that secular Israelis make a historical claim that Jews originated in Judaea. That Judaea the only (or sometimes last depending on the particular secular Israeli) country that Jews inhabited primarily.

    So for example there are 3.1m Iranians, 3.1m Pakistanies, 300k people in the UAE, 130k in Germany… whose grandparents, parents or themselves came from Afghanistan. They and most of the planet consider themselves Afghan even if they have never lived there because of a cultural affinity and ethnic ties. Most secular Israelis believe that their great grandparents who migrated had similar ties to Palestine.

    Religious Israelis of course on top of that that make the religious claim.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on February 14, 2015, 11:21 am

      And JeffyB just keeps on muttering. And on, and on , and on….

      And the good word is still “Don’t eat the eggs!”

    • lyn117
      lyn117 on February 14, 2015, 11:30 am

      “Their [secular Israelis] claim is mostly: they were born in Israel and everyone has a right to live where they are born”

      B.S. If they made that claim, they would have allowed all the Palestinian refugees back to where they were born.

      “It is the anti-colonalist movement that needs to make a claim to a permanent racial inheritance over land not secular Israelis. On top of that secular Israelis make a historical claim that Jews originated in Judaea.”

      a) Isn’t making the “historical claim that that Jews originated in Judea” as a basis for Jewish rights to the land in fact making their claim as if it were due to permanent racial inheritance?
      b) Since the “historical claim that Jews originated in Judea” is false and only based on biblical myth anyway, that makes this claim a religious one of being God-given, as piotr said

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 14, 2015, 12:29 pm

        Lyn117, you remember what Emerson said: “A foolish consistency is the measles of mankind”

        Now, you wouldn’t expect JeffyB to have measles, would you? It would be a serious epidemic, since he contains multitudes.

    • talknic
      talknic on February 14, 2015, 12:37 pm

      @ JeffB “…everyone has the right to right to live where they are born”

      Indeed if they’re legal citizens of that territory. For example non-Jewish Israeli citizens

      However, Israeli citizens born on non-Israeli territories held under Israeli military occupation or acquired by war since Israel was proclaimed “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” were not born in Israel and; do not have the right to live as Israeli citizens in non-Israeli territory, especially when it is held under military occupation.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on February 15, 2015, 11:53 am

        Oh, now that’s nice, that’s the way for Jews to live! Yup, go settle illegally in occupied territory and then use your own children as human shields! Now, that’s frum, that’s a culture that takes a lickin’ and keeps on tikkun!!

  22. lyn117
    lyn117 on February 14, 2015, 6:27 pm

    As far as recognizing “the legitimate national aspirations of both peoples” of the anti-BDS statement, I really don’t recognize ridding a land of its most of its native people (in this case Palestinian Arabs) or banning them from living there as a legitimate aspiration of any people. Too bad that’s a Zionist goal, necessary to create an exclusive Jewish state.

  23. JeffB
    JeffB on February 15, 2015, 8:04 am

    @talknic

    Jeffb: “There is an assumption there that the UN’s interpretation of international law is correct and violating the UN Charter is a delegitimizing activity. I don’t see evidence for that. Countries and people violate the charter all the time.”

    How many wrongs do you need to make a right JeffB?

    I think it shows it isn’t a wrong. But more importantly your claim was that it is the majority position. It isn’t the majority position if they don’t do it. I think a good deal of the UN was an over reaction trying to avoid many terrible outcomes by institutionalizing others. What happened with the Soviet Union, China, North Korea… most of Africa and the Middle East falling to horrific dictatorships proves how unwise the UN Charter was. I’m glad it is discredited it.

    But regardless of whether it is right or wrong the question is whether it represents majority opinion. And the fact that countries freely violate it show the answer to be no it is not.

    “Japanese Jews are not considered really Japanese by either the Jews or the Japanese”

    Says who?

    Any article on them. Google. Or think for a second about how the Japanese conceive of their national identity.

    If you want to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Japan

  24. talknic
    talknic on February 16, 2015, 5:03 am

    You’re babbling JeffB

    “I think it shows it isn’t a wrong.”

    This is yours JeffB … ” people violate the charter all the time.”

    So now a violation isn’t wrong. OK. I’ll remember that bit of JeffB wisdom

    Wikipedia? No thanks. It is written by anyone, no qualifications necessary, can be dictated by a cabal (consensus), right or wrong and according to its editorial policies favours third hand opinion over truth. It is not by any means an encyclopedia.

Leave a Reply